/lit/ - Literature

>>17698979
Most works 'against' eugenics proceed from purely moral grounds. Ie, "it's wrong because it's wrong." "It's wrong because it's mean." "It's wrong because the Nazis did it." Etc. If you mean books which argue "It's wrong because the concept itself doesn't work," then, you won't find much.

>>17698979

There are plenty but they are all wrong.

Nobody has been able to invent an IQ test where blacks score the same as whites. Think about that.

You're looking for something that doesn't exist.

>>17698979
Boy, you people are crazy.
Such a fucking downer.
Your entire life revolves around this.

>>17698979
>AFTER recognising the necessity of a regeneration of the human race, if we follow up the possibilities of its ennoblement we light on little else than obstacles. [...] We cannot withhold our acknowledgment that the human family consists of irremediably disparate races, whereof the noblest well might rule the more ignoble, yet never raise them to their level by commixture, but simply sink to theirs. Indeed this one relation might suffice to explain our fall; even its cheerlessness should not blind us to it: if it is reasonable to assume that the dissolution of our earthly globe is purely a question of time, we probably shall have to accustom ourselves to the idea of the human species dying out. On the other hand there is such a matter as life beyond all time and space, and the question whether the world has a moral meaning we here will try to answer by asking ourselves if we mean to go to ground as beasts or gods.

>>17698999
Meh, i am not concerned about moral discussion, but in pratical discussions of the impossibility of it.

>>17699003
Who gives a shit? Do you really want society to run strictly based on psychometrics?

>>17699003
It's a given that blacks are inferior to whites but the real redpill that people don't want to take is that some whites are inferior to other whites. If you're a blue collar worker and so was your father and grandfather you probably don't have a lot going on upstairs no matter what your skin color is. It's ironic that rednecks hate niggas so much since they're not really different

>>17699020
>Do you really want society to run strictly based on psychometrics?

Strawman.

>>17699009
You people who? I already said there that i am not a nazi, but a simple man that came to the conclusion that some people dont deserve to exist or to procreate.

>>17698999
trips of truth.

You can't really refute eugenics without dipping your toes into neo-liberal post-modern social sciences, and other perverse garbage peddled by hypocritical kikes and other related moralfaggotry.

>>17698979
Eugenics is not inherently evil, it is neutral like any science and can be used for evil ends just like any science. It has a bad rep and stigma because of nazism and racist people who only think of eugenics through a racist lens.

>New eugenics is distinguished from previous versions of eugenics by its emphasis on informed parental choice rather than coercive governmental control.[5]
>Eugenics is sometimes broken into the categories of positive eugenics (encouraging reproduction among the designated "fit") and negative eugenics (discouraging reproduction among those designated "unfit"). Another distinction is between coercive eugenics and non-coercive eugenics. According to Edwin Black, many positive eugenic programs were advocated and pursued during the early 20th century, but the negative programs were responsible for the compulsory sterilization of hundreds of thousands of persons in many countries, and were contained in much of the rhetoric of Nazi eugenic policies of racial hygiene and genocide.[6] New eugenics belongs to the positive eugenics category.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_eugenics

>>17699029
That’s not a strawman, you idiot.

Also, it’s a pertinent question.
There will be standard deviations of difference in IQ even in homogenous societies.
What is this the implication of this on policy decisions?
And why does it need to be based on race anyway when you have this distribution in any society?

>>17699054
Aborting a fetus that would grow up with a severe birth defect is probably something which would fall within the range of reasonable for most people, sure.

>>17699065
you'd be surprised anon. this whole culture of acceptance and the push for equity (probably worse in my country) has people taking some pretty wild positions.

>>17699003
durrrrr

>>17699082

>give different tests to blacks, than whites

duuuurrrr

>>17699073
Midgets have always been pretty well-accepted. They’ve even gained folk reverence at various periods of time throughout history.

>>17699115
can't have kino without midgets

Mind that i am not defending the extermination of a race, but the elevation of the human race by choosing certain people to procreate more and the prohibition of certain other people to procreate.

>>17698979
You can't debunk eugenics, because that would require debunking genetics, heredity, and basic reality.

We knew long before Darwin how animal husbandry and selection worked.

Applying this logic to understand how some humans are healthier, smarter, taller, shorter, etc... than others is simply obvious.

I eat a diet to minimize the mutational load on my sperm (recommended by sperm banks). No cellphones in my pants or laptops on my lap. No nicotine. No adderall. Nothing.

My only wish is that the Chinese company BGI hurries up with its embryonic selection therapy.

I want to pay 10,000$ a pop for designer babies, it will give them the best shot in life.

I will not tell them they were genetically engineered because I don't want them to get full of themselves, or fall back on their laurels. Same way you shouldn't call a child smart, you should compliment them for being hard-working.

>>17699037
Who put you in charge? Christ you must be a humungous faggot. Get laid and live and let die.

>>17699115
Probably not the best example sure, but it's an example of carrying on a genetic defect by choice (I think)

>>17699201
t. woman

>>17699014
Seriously thought Wagner being based was just a meme.

>>17699082
>one white group scores worse than the other
>its OK!!! they probably have bigger dicks
sociologists need to be shot

>>17699052
What's the context of the gif? What were they laughing about?

>>17699786
Nigger you can't even read. That was a sarcastic remark on how the American sociologists measured dick size when it was black vs white but the South African sociologists did whatever they could to hide the difference between two white groups

>>17699791
>What's the context of the gif?
kangaroo court
>What were they laughing about?
Clown world and jokes told by Jewish comedians.

>>17698979
>I'm not a Nazi
>by which I mean I am not a member of the Nazi Party, now defunct. I do however share most of their beliefs.

>>17698999
How about "it's moronic to sterilize your own population while they're breeding below replacement?"
Also, how would you handle cases like someone who is strong and healthy, but dumb, or a genius who is disabled?

>>17699769
What's based about that statement?

>>17698979
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/658780

>>17699018
I'm pretty sure you are not going to find much in that regard, given that eugenics has been proved to work (On animals, Selective breeding is a form of eugenics), even then I think it's some of prohibited ground where actually empirically discussing the topic is discouraged to say the least, soall you are going to find is random morality. And as a man in a mied country I feel you man, occasionally I want to murder the fucking retarded monkey people too, thank god I'm white (Whitest genes in all of Argentina goyim/massa I assure you.) But good luck anyways OP.

>>17700627
mixed*